The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category overlap. Second time this user has created a superfluous category just to list personal fan favourites.(first user made category already speedy deleted) Multiple heavy metal categories covering this topic.
The Real Libs-
speak politely23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People mentioned by Eric Burdon
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete – it's empty anyway (in the usual sense), and the articles it lists are redlinks - indeed it is perhaps the least competent category I have yet seen.
Occuli (
talk)
08:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Doug episodes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This hasn't had any episode articles in it for a long time, and there likely will never be any to occupy it.
TTN (
talk)
20:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Doug episode stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pibo Manitoba (SSR)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Brat Pack
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria. With so many young actors in the 1980s being tagged more or less frequently as Brat Packers, this is unsuitable for a category as there need to be
reliable sources explaining why an actor of the era should or shouldn't be considered a member. The article does an admirable job indexing and cross-referencing the various actors and their films in common, and the actors are linked through the film articles, other articles and
Brat Pack.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ambassadors of China to Russia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rat Pack
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category (five articles minus the improperly categorized films) with no growth potential. All the members are extensively interlinked through any number of articles, including
Rat Pack, and a complete list is already in that article.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Chinese clothing companies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Clothing and textile companies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - these two industries seem arbitrarily lumped together, presumably because they both deal with cloth. However, one industry deals with it as a finished product and the other as its raw material. The majority of the categories contain nothing but subcats for clothing companies and textile companies, with a few stray articles in some of them. I propose creating
Category:Clothing companies,
Category:Clothing companies by country,
Category:Textile companies and
Category:Textile companies by country. Delete these combined container cats, relocate the subcats into the new appropriate parents and sort out the few loose articles into the right subcat.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Sort out per nom though may be there is just a case for keeping the single head cat as a container for sub-cats. I think this is still a category found in some business & economics contexts. This one has lots of articles to sort btw.
Johnbod (
talk)
18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Support proposal - I had questioned the existence of these categories some weeks back, but it wasn't on my high priority to-do list, so I commend Otto for putting in the effort to deal with them.
Cgingold (
talk)
12:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:School massacres in Canada
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional phocomelic characters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category holding nothing but two redirects, one of which is likely to be deleted as the article section to which it points has been removed from the target article. There is little likelihood that an article will ever be written about the character Flipper and phocomilia doesn't seem to figure much in fiction.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete -- As an alternative, a WikiProject could tag the redirect talk page with their banner to categorize the redirect pages in their project sub categories. However, there seems to be no reason for the project itself to categorize two redirects. --
Suntag (
talk)
16:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian political prisoners
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete per POV and OR concerns. No problems with recategorization if a NPOV title can be agreed upon that isn't OR.
Kbdank7119:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Category:Political prisoners was deleted after
this discussion in November 2006 and this category was created a month afterwards. The same arguments apply in this instance as they did then; there is no neutral way to define a political prisoner, it is
POV. It would appear that political prisoners in this category are defined by editors own POVs rather than an actual definition, which is always going to be inherently POV and contentious.
RussaviaDialogueStalk me03:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - for the POV concerns as expressed in the original nomination for the parent cat. The history appears to be that the parent was deleted per the original CFD in 2006. In 2007 an editor created the prisoners and victims category and at some point political prisoners was created as a redirect. Earlier this year a history undelete was done on political prisoners.
Otto4711 (
talk)
13:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, for his or her involvement in political activity.
Prisoner of conscience.
persons imprisoned because they await trial for, or have been convicted of, actions usually qualified as terrorism.
All convicted for treason and espionage.
and goes on to note that "...whether an individual is regarded as a political prisoner may depend upon subjective political perspective or interpretation of the evidence" and then lists people who describe themselves as political prisoners whether anyone else does or not. Which of these definitions shall we use to decide who goes into the categories and how do we overcome the subjective interpretation of the evidence and political perspective without resorting to
original research?
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Actually, this article provides only one definition in the first paragraph: someone held in prison or otherwise detained for his or her involvement in political activity. This is very simple. This is a correct, widely-accepted definition and it can be easily sourced.
Prisoner of conscience is something different and more narrowly defined (but also defined). All social sciences is imprecise area of knowledge, but there are certain definition of terms. As long as we have article
Political prisoners, we need the corresponding
Category:Political prisoners. Would you also argue that we do not need
Category:Proteins because
Proteins are difficult to distinguish from
Peptides?
Biophys (
talk)
19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per Otto: POV and OR problems will be inherent in this kind of classification. The argument that a category must exist as long as the article
political prisoners exists is not a great one and one that won't gain much traction in CfD—there are probably thousands of categories that have been deleted (for various reasons) for which there were and still are relevant articles. Incidentally, there are also categories for other nationalities (Belarusian, Czech, Syrian, etc.) which also should be nominated and deleted if this one is.
Good Ol’factory(talk)22:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Strange logic. There is such thing as
political prisoners, but there are no people who are actually (per sources)
political prisoners. This is unbelievable.
Biophys (
talk) 22:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Fine. Since you suggested also to delete categories from other countries, I informed users who created these categories.
Biophys (
talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Do you suggest that
Nelson Mandela and others like him were not political prisoners?
Biophys (
talk)
22:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
POV is a problem already. I have already placed some of those articles in
Category:Russian criminals due to their criminal convictions, which Biophys has removed claiming that if they are political prisoners, they can't be criminals. He's going to pursue to remove them under
WP:BLP, but as I told him on my talk page, if Russian courts convicted them of criminal offences, then they are criminals. Just because a human rights organisation claims they are political prisoners, this does not change the fact that they were convicted on criminal charges in Russian courts, thereby making them criminals. You can't have one POV without the other I am afraid. --
RussaviaDialogueStalk me23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I haven't replaced anything. I have added to the categories. It's your POV that you removed the criminal category. Text clearly state they were convicted under Russian criminal code, thereby making them criminals. --
RussaviaDialogueStalk me00:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Now that you have stricken your remarks, I feel that your labelling criminals as political prisoners is nothing more than
POV on your part. And herein, lies the absolute POV problems with such categories. --
RussaviaDialogueStalk me12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
What do you mean? It tells: "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists and navigation boxes) help readers find articles". Right. That is exactly what this category does. I edited those articles, and this cat helped me a lot to navigate.
Biophys (
talk)
00:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep reading. (Specifically: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article; a list might be a better option.")
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The list of people from all countries who are described as "political prisoners" in sources would be too long. The term "political prisoner" is not controversial. If someone (e.g.
Nelson Mandela) qualifies as a "political prisoner" should be decided on the case to case basis - per sources - just as in any other classification system, including biological and chemical ones.
Biophys (
talk)
18:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
It would not be "too long", because it would be incomplete. It would actually be quite simple to create a list that includes the few articles that are now in the categories in question. The term "political prisoner" is controversial, as this very conversation should point out. One man's political prisoner is another man's terrorist or common thug. Mandela is an extreme example; most are not as clear-cut or uncontroversial as he.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - the term "
political prisoner" is rather well-defined and it is completely non-surprizing that from the point of view of government they are criminals. The POV with respect to inclusion of any person into this category must be resolved in the corresponding wikibio, and if the person described as such in their article (with references to reputable sources which describe them ad PolPris), only then it must be included into the category.
Dzied Bulbash (
talk)
00:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep or rename to "People believed to be political prisoners" or sth like that. The term is widely used and recognised, and there are people who actually are or have been political prisoners. At least for historical persons this should apply definitely.--
Czalex05:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see any reason, why we should delete above mentioned categories just because it could (or it has yet) raise some POV concerns. The question is, how to define people (and eliminate POV problems), who will be in the category, not if it's reasonable category. Someone held in prison or otherwise detained for his or her involvement in political activity seems like quite good definition.
Petr Kopač (
talk)
18:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep I strongly feel this category should be kept. If reliable sources deem a person to be a political prisoner, then I don't see any reason why not to call a person a political prisoner and categorize the person as such.
Serouj (
talk)
18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Question - assuming arguendo that only the first definition of "political prisoner" from the article is accepted as the definition, disregarding the other three proffered definitions from the article and the notation in the article that whether someone is considered a political prisoner is likely to be subjective based on political considerations and the interpretation of the evidence, what the hell is a "political victim"? If consensus is to ignore the vageries of this categorization scheme, at the very least it should not include "political victims" in the name because of the complete lack of any sort of definition.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.